I actually found it baffling to believe that this is a real thing. But Biblical Archaeology? Basically its a field of archaeology dedicated to finding biblical artefacts. Even if they want to do that, why do they have to put that extra label on it. If it has actual credibility do they need to give it its own special title. Can it not just be archaeology?
After hearing about this on Yahoo Answers, I did a Google search myself to see for myself and amazingly its a real thing
The site promoting it, called Biblical Archaeology.org claims it plans to do "dozens" of archaeological digs throughout the Middle East and Europe. And of course they are seeking volunteers. Well at least they are "somewhat" realistic about their approach and expecting hundreds of digs.
What do yo think about this? Are they wasting their time entirely?
I agree. I've always said that if something worked, you wouldn't need a special name for it. My example that I use is so-called "alternative medicine". If it worked, it would be called "Medicine". Same goes here. If they used proper archaeological procedures to find artefacts of times past, they would be "Archaeologists". Seeing as they're using the extra title, they're going to mysteriously find all the 'proof' they need of their religion, which, like most other areas of religious study, won't stand up to proper research and scrutiny. Even in their own bible, there's the passage that says 'Seek and you shall find'. They're going to find supposedly biblical artefacts because that's what they're looking for. And most likely, they won't be actual biblical artefacts. They're just going to find what they're looking for. So yes, I do think it's a waste of time, along with other specialised areas of study that are already actual things. If it was legit and useful, it would just be archaeology.
Alternative medicine that works remains alternative medicine unless a corporation can patent it and make money from it. At that point is stops being alternative.
I suppose it comes down to whether the "Biblical" part of their name denotes an actual specialty or a mere adjective. And I'm not sure even that distinction is clear and distinct. Take another field, pediatric surgery. A pediatric surgeon may specialize in operating on children but probably along the way obtained the knowledge to operate on adults, were it to become necessary (e.g., in times of a disaster where surgeons are in short supply).
That is a very good point. I guess we'll have to wait and see if they are just looking for what they want to find, or whether they're actual, trained archaeologists who just happen to be looking for biblical artefacts. But until then, I'm thinking that they're just out to find and prove whatever arbitrary religion they happen to be a part of, but I'd love to be proven wrong, because it's obviously a legitimate field of study. The problem is that even if nothing is found and the evidence for religions remains the same (x=0), people still won't listen and stick their fingers in their ears and say "la la la". The problem isn't with finding evidence (or lack of), it's that belief is too engrained in people's heads that they reject reality when it opposes their belief.
I don't begrudge them wanting an answer to their biblical questions, as long as their mind is upen to disconfirming evidenence as well. As long as they meet that standard, I don't care what they call themselves.
The funny thing about this qualified archaeology is that they cannot dig into Mother Earth and conveniently find the artifacts that support their belief. They could very well uncover something that may prove to be at odds with there biblical understanding. Uh oh! I wonder if they might just put something problematic back under the soil and move on.
I believe the upper echelons of the Catholic Church know that God doesn't exist. They've just got a realyl good thing going so why rock the boat?
Much like the Scientologists. Do you seriously believe that L. Ron Hubbard, David Miscavige, and Tom Cruise really believe all that planetary horseshit? They're all too smart for that.
L. Ron Hubbard certainly did not believe a word of it. He was a Sci-Fi writer and is widely rumoured to have said that “the best way to make a million dollars was to start your own religion”.
I have maintained this stance since learning of Dianetics and Scientology. The guy was a swindler and a sci-fi author. He certainly was no prophet!
I studied Judeo-Christian history for two years under Professor Mark Elliott who runs the website www.bibleinterp.com. We read a lot of Biblical Archaeology journals articles, books, etc. We were taught that Biblical Archaeology is nothing more than archaeology that focuses around sites described in the Bible. In some cases, archaeological evidence seems to corroborate some of the historical claims made in the Bible, and in many others it does not.
Like anything else, there are some who set out to prove the Bible is true. For others, it's simple scholarly interest in the historicity of the Bible.
Biblical Archaeology is not new. The magazine Biblical Archaeology Review has been around since the 70s or early 80s.
Well I suppose if you think of in terms of how old the bible is, its not that old of an idea
What do they do if they accidentally uncover dinosaur bones, or anything else older than 6000 years old? sounds dangerous to me, they should probably just go back to the 'faith' pre set and forget all that science and provable history non sense.